Logical Positivism, Jonathon Swift, and Neurosis

I don't see the connections between a lot of what you're saying. I can agree that our society tends to put down our animal nature, aka, our physical desires/needs for our mental capacities. This is largely to do with the concept of dualism and is rejected outright in a lot of other societies where there is a more holistic approach to life (mind/body both are combined and necessary).

What I don't understand is how this is expressed in psychoanalysis. How are you saying we repress our human natures? Finally, please explain how you think original sin is the universal neurosis.

Finally, I think there is a huge difference between using empiricism and rationality as a standard for thought and separating the mind from the body. The body is NOT a part of our rational thought process. Clearly it makes sense to use a rational system based on symbolic logic and proven theorems when dealing with issues of the mind, beliefs, truth value, and epistemology in general. WHAT in the WORLD would you come up with that doesn't fit into the rational system? The irrational isn't useful because we, as rational beings, can't understand its truth nor its purpose... This isn't to say that things like poetry and babble don't strike emotions in us, but it isn't philosophically useful. We can't prove anything with it.

I'm not saying I agree with the positivists, I believe there is more to life than science and that inquiry exceeds the realm of the pure empirical. But that inquiry still needs to be rational, since it is inquiry of the mind and our mental capacities, it makes sense for it to be limited to rational thought.

I think my philosophy major is showing. I have another question, is this just a passion of yours? Are you interested in debates or are you just trying to make observations between theories?

sarasnee

In this OP I am trying to display human nature as it tries to make itself more god like and less animal like. To do this I am trying to show how psychology can help us understand this fact of human behavior. I am a self-actualizing self-learner and I have been studying psychology for many months. I think that all of us need to comprehend the fundamentals of human nature as illuminated by psychology.

Repression is the human reaction that begins an infant’s life and is with him or her for the entire life. The infant begins life as a party animal and the parents immediately cut short that party animal. The party animal then begins to repress the urges and later in life they also repress the repression. That is what we call neurosis.

Norman Brown tells us that to comprehend Freud one must understand “repression”. “In the new Freudian perspective, the essence of society is repression of the individual, the essence of the individual is repression of the self.”

Freud discovered the importance of repression when he discovered the meaning of the “mad” symptoms of the mentally deranged, plus the meaning of dreams, and thirdly the everyday happenings regarded as slips of the tongue, errors, and random thoughts. He concludes that dreams, mental derangements, and common every day errors (Freudian slips) have meaningful causes that can be explained. Meaningful is the key word here.

Since these psychic phenomena are unconscious we must accept that we have motivation to action with a purpose for which we are unconscious (involuntary purposes). This inner nature of which we are completely unaware leads to Freud’s definition of psychoanalysis as “nothing more than the discovery of the unconscious in mental life.”

Freud discovered that sapiens have unconscious causes which are hidden from her because they are disowned and hidden by the conscious self. The dynamic relationship between the unconscious and conscious life is a constant battle and psychoanalysis is a science of this mental conflict.

The rejection of an idea which is one’s very own and remains so is repression. The essence of repression is in the fact that the individual refuses to recognize this reality of her very own nature. This nature becomes evident when it erupts into consciousness only in dreams or neurotic symptoms or by slips of the tongue.

The unconscious is illuminated only when it is being repressed by the conscious mind. It is a process of psychic conflict. “We obtain our theory of the unconscious from the theory of repression.” Freud’s hypothesis of the repressed unconscious results from the conclusion that it is common to all humans. This is a phenomenon of everyday life; neurosis is common to all humans.

Dreams are normal phenomena and being that the structure of dreams is common to neurotics and normal people the dream is also neurotic. “Between “normality” and “abnormality” there is no qualitative but only quantitative difference, based largely on the practical question of whether our neurosis is serious enough to incapacitate us for work…the doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind is the psychoanalytical analogue of the theological doctrine of original sin.”

Quotes from “Life against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History” Norman O. Brown

coberst, excuse what may be a stupid question, but what exactly are you trying to achieve with posts such as this one and the "Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note" one? You seem to quote one or more sources, and state a few opinions, but there is no indication of whether you have a question or if you just want people to comment on your thoughts and opinions. I'm by no means trying to discourage you, I just don't really understand what sort of input you're looking for from respondents.

FlintZA, he sort of answered my own question along the same lines in PM, but I think it'd be interesting if he told everyone in a new thread (it's a fascinating topic that has to do with learning).

coberst, excuse what may be a stupid question, but what exactly are you trying to achieve with posts such as this one and the "Declaration of Independence: Promissory Note" one? You seem to quote one or more sources, and state a few opinions, but there is no indication of whether you have a question or if you just want people to comment on your thoughts and opinions. I'm by no means trying to discourage you, I just don't really understand what sort of input you're looking for from respondents.

-"FlintZA"

Why do I post the things I post in the places I post?

I am a retired engineer with 25 years of what I call self-actualizing self-learning. All of this leads me to conclude that if the citizens of democracies do not become significantly more intellectually sophisticated quickly our civilization is unlikely to survive the next 200 years.

Our educational institutions are controlled by those who do not find it to be in their interest to have intellectually sophisticated citizens and thus we cannot depend upon our educational institutions for a solution to our problem.

The solution can happen only when a significant percentage of our citizens become self-actualizing self-learners. I post in an effort to further that possibility by introducing new ideas to our citizens. I hope to arouse the critical capacity of our citizens to the point that they turn to the books and become self-actualizing self-learners too.

Our educational system is designed to graduate good producers and consumers. Our system does not wish to produce critical thinking citizens. Our task, those of us who comprehend this, is to convince our fellows to begin their intellectual life after their schools daze are over. Think of it this way, our schooling is for the purpose of getting a job and our intellectual life is for the purpose of helping us understanding the meaning of our life and to prevent us from destroying our self in the process.

Those of us who comprehend this matter have a responsibility to do what we can to convince others to get an intellectual life. It is time to stop the talk and start the walk.

Mmmmmm, leftovers from your posts on other forums and PMs to me.



If you've got something to teach us, o great master, don't dump copypasta on us. At the very least, put it all in one place (maybe on a blog somewhere) and link us to it. Otherwise, you're just repeating the same paragraphs of stuff while trying to appear to have written it all up on the spot.

That's a very noble goal coberst. It's interesting that you choose to begin doing this by means of internet forums, it's a good place to start if nothing else.
However, may I suggest you consider the normal behavior of 'forumites' when doing this? In my experience, dumping large posts like that in a forum will achieve one of two things:
1. You will get ignored or..
2. You will get banned (unlikely on this forum, I think)

The nature of forum discussions (and the people that participate in them) is usually that information is consumed in small chunks, skimmed if possible. If you want to encourage people to read what you write, take some lessons from the tabloids (as Leo suggested in one of his articles, as luck would have it). You want catchy headlines, you want bite-size chunks of information, and you want punchlines. I know this may seem counter to what you are trying to do, but remember we have all been trained/brainwashed for years to only pick up the highlighted points on the poster, and to ignore the long-winded health warnings in the fine print. That training isn't abolished overnight, and will most likely work against your current format.

Good luck. And I sincerely mean that.

That's a very noble goal coberst. It's interesting that you choose to begin doing this by means of internet forums, it's a good place to start if nothing else.
However, may I suggest you consider the normal behavior of 'forumites' when doing this? In my experience, dumping large posts like that in a forum will achieve one of two things:
1. You will get ignored or..
2. You will get banned (unlikely on this forum, I think)

The nature of forum discussions (and the people that participate in them) is usually that information is consumed in small chunks, skimmed if possible. If you want to encourage people to read what you write, take some lessons from the tabloids (as Leo suggested in one of his articles, as luck would have it). You want catchy headlines, you want bite-size chunks of information, and you want punchlines. I know this may seem counter to what you are trying to do, but remember we have all been trained/brainwashed for years to only pick up the highlighted points on the poster, and to ignore the long-winded health warnings in the fine print. That training isn't abolished overnight, and will most likely work against your current format.

Good luck. And I sincerely mean that.

-"FlintZA"

Some forums behave as you describe but most do not. I have been doing this for more than four years.

Most people have no idea what or why a person wants to learn and understand just as an end in itself. I try to display for them that a person can become a self-actualizing self-learner without becoming some alien creature.

I suspect your moderator was given me the hook already so perhaps this may be one of the few forums that cannot handle such odd behavior.

'Given you the hook'? If you mean banned, no, I haven't, because you haven't done anything bannable. The worst you've done is irritate me personally with your copypasta (both here and in PM), but, last time I checked, that's not grounds for a ban.

You still haven't explained why you equate intellectual sophistication with learning absolutely random, useless, and generally uninteresting sets of facts. Actually, isn't that what public schools make you do?

Give me a simple, non-pasted answer: Why should I seek to learn something I'm not interested in and can't use?

On a side note, your repeated terminology, 'self-actualizing self-learner', sounds bogus. I'm not that much into self-help psychojargon, so you might need to explain what 'self-actualization' is. And isn't a self-learner someone who learns about themselves? Do you actually mean 'self-teacher' or 'independent learner'?

Fekket..


We learn interested knowledge as a means to an end. We learn disinerested knowledge as an end-in-itself. Studying disinterested knowledge is preparation for a work of art. To study disinterested knowledge is to seek understanding and not just knowledge. To understand is to create meaning and disinterested knowledge is like a child at play. It is at play that we crate not only meaning but we create energy. A child at play creates energy. An adult at play creates energy and studying disinterested knowledge is play.

In general I read history, science, psychology, and light philosophy (I generally do not try to read original stuff but read from a secondary source).

For example I have been trying to understand the meaning of 'understand' for a long time and I think I now have an answer. I will stop the effort but I constantly am prepared to take it up again should something reignite my doubt as to my answer or that I find something that will add to my understanding.

I have been working at understanding "Philosophy in the Flesh" for months and I now feel that I understand the fundamentals of the theory but I will continue to work on 'rounding out' my understanding. I think that this theory defined in this book will become the first paradigm for cognitive science. It is a revolutionary theory that I recommend at every opportunity.

I also have read a bit of Dewey. I like Dewey especially his “Habits and Will” which focuses on the importance of habit in our character development and in our development of an intellectual life. I got started in the matter of understanding while studying empathy. Empathy is a process of imagination constructing something that will help a person to understand another person.

For example one might try to construct in imagination something about the life of a terrorist so as to understand why that person could do such a thing. The caring is associated with the desire to understand because in understanding ones enemy can best combat that enemy.

The terrorist need not be the object of caring. The caring is associated with combating the terrorist. I care enough about fighting terrorism that I will make the effort of empathy.

I do not mean caring to be necessarily or even occasionally associated with caring for the well being of some one. I use the word care to mean that I care about understanding this domain of knowledge.

I am a great fan of CT (Critical Thinking) and the effort to introduce this subject into our schools and colleges. CT is the fundamental requirement for self-actuated learning, I think.

I think that understanding and disinterested knowledge are the two sides of the same coin. I am sure that people on occasion bother to understand a domain of knowledge for reasons other than a desire to understand. Every specialist probably learns to understand his or her specialty and they have been led to do it because it is an instrument serving a career purpose.

I think that a person strives to learn disinterested knowledge because they wish to understand that domain of knowledge. I do not think many people bother to study something that does not have a valuable payoff in money unless it is to understand. I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked do you understand math would answer quickly, are you kidding me.

Some forums behave as you describe but most do not. I have been doing this for more than four years.

Most people have no idea what or why a person wants to learn and understand just as an end in itself. I try to display for them that a person can become a self-actualizing self-learner without becoming some alien creature.

I suspect your moderator was given me the hook already so perhaps this may be one of the few forums that cannot handle such odd behavior.

People on this forum are trying to understand your thinking, and discussing your goals positively and critically. I would hardly describe that as '[unable to] handle such odd behavior. I would think actually discussing a topic rather than absorbing it blindly and accepting it as truth would be a far more positive indication of people's willingness to develop and learn :)

For example one might try to construct in imagination something about the life of a terrorist so as to understand why that person could do such a thing. The caring is associated with the desire to understand because in understanding ones enemy can best combat that enemy.

The terrorist need not be the object of caring. The caring is associated with combating the terrorist. I care enough about fighting terrorism that I will make the effort of empathy.

-"coberst"

This, then, falls under the heading of 'useful' (as well as, in my opinion, extremely interesting) knowledge (which can be applied to a goal, such as fighting terrorism). Therefore, I don't think it applies at all to your explanation of 'disinterested' learning.

I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked do you understand math would answer quickly, are you kidding me.

-"coberst"

While I'm with you on not learning advanced topics like calculus unless directly necessary or interesting, I don't see the difference between "learning to do it" and "studying it". I equate that to "learning to speak and read Japanese" as opposed to "studying Japanese". That makes no sense.

On a related note: I was considering your adulation of 'disinterested learning', and quickly thought of the great Sherlock Holmes.

Fekket..

Most people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending disinterested knowledge. Probably because they have never kown anyone who sought knowledge and understanding just for the fun of it. I may study music as disinterested knowledge. The guy who makes a living playing in a band studies music as interested knowledge.


This quotation of Carl Rogers might illuminate my meaning of disinterested knowledge.

I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his 'cruiser'. I am talking about the student who says, "I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me." I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: "No, no, that's not what I want"; "Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need"; "Ah, here it is! Now I'm grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know!"

I understand that there's a certain pleasure in finally comprehending something (as a scholar of the history and evils of Scientology, I often get this 'bulb clicks on' sensation when piecing together some new concept during my research). The thing is, can't you experience this while researching something useful/interesting? Is it really necessary to arbitrarily pick something useless and/or uninteresting to you and study it simply for the purpose of comprehending it? I'd imagine the eventual 'bulb clicks on' moment would be much emptier in that case.

Unrelated: Most people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending THE TIMECUBE! DISINTERESTED LEARNING HAS FOUR SIDES!

random, useless, and generally uninteresting

See, this is where my beef lies. Some find these topics uninteresting, but clearly the original poster finds them important to know and interesting in and of itself. And since random, useless, "UNINTERESTING" information is my major, I take offense. Besides even though it might not have to do with Zen habits directly, the OP seems to think deep knowledge is part of a fulfilled life. There is something to be said for knowledge in and of itself. I find it interesting anyway. Also, why is there a problem with copying what he said to you via PM? If it fully explained his intentions, why not let us all know? Why re-write it if it explained well?

Coberst, technically I would prefer if you at least ended your posts with something like: "Any thoughts on this? Agreements? Disagreements?" or any questions you have yourself. Because my conclusion has been to discuss and disagree on some points and I feel like I'm shooting in the dark when it comes to what YOU want to discuss on the topic.

What do you mean by disinterested knowledge, coberst? Personally I find nearly all topics absolutely fascinating, and all knowledge as end-in-itself. I'm at the point where I would never call it "disinterested." Technically if you take knowledge as an end in and of itself, NO topic should be boring to learn or considered disinterested knowledge.

Other than that, coberst, I applaud your desire to broaden your horizons beyond the fields of engineering, as some people find one topic that interests them and hone in on it without an open mind to the rest of the world. I agree with your pursuit and I hope that I can do the same in my future.

And to all, if there is reason to ban people for trying to start long intellectual discussions then I'd better quit my forum obsession too. I write large posts and if it's good info, people will take the time to read it. It's not about punchlines and entertainment, it's about getting your point across clearly, which can take a HUGE CHUNK of space (take this post for an example). But, since this is a discussion board, I agree I would like a question or two to aid in starting a discussion.

Edit: and on the original subject...

I understand Freud's concept of repression. I understand that we repress things psychologically and, usually, they are things we find damaging to our psyche so we subconsciously repress them. Makes sense. However, what part of animal/human nature are we repressing? I'm mostly just asking for a specific example or two.

I'm still curious as to why you consider religion to be the ultimate neuroses as well.

I understand that there's a certain pleasure in finally comprehending something (as a scholar of the history and evils of Scientology, I often get this 'bulb clicks on' sensation when piecing together some new concept during my research). The thing is, can't you experience this while researching something useful/interesting? Is it really necessary to arbitrarily pick something useless and/or uninteresting to you and study it simply for the purpose of comprehending it? I'd imagine the eventual 'bulb clicks on' moment would be much emptier in that case.

Unrelated: Most people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending THE TIMECUBE! DISINTERESTED LEARNING HAS FOUR SIDES!

-"FekketCantenel"

I do not think so. My experience and my reading indicates that humans love to play but hate to work. Otto Rank "Art and Artist" explores this idea and so does Norman O Brown "Life against Death" and Ernest Becker in several of his books. Carl Sagan says "Understanding is a kind of ecstasy". Understanding is the creation of meaning and we seek understanding primarily of disinterested knowledge because instrumental rationality demands only knowledge and not understandng.

Sarasnee

this is the reply I gave earlier in this thread to the matter of disinterested knowledge.

We learn interested knowledge as a means to an end. We learn disinerested knowledge as an end-in-itself. Studying disinterested knowledge is preparation for a work of art. To study disinterested knowledge is to seek understanding and not just knowledge. To understand is to create meaning and disinterested knowledge is like a child at play. It is at play that we crate not only meaning but we create energy. A child at play creates energy. An adult at play creates energy and studying disinterested knowledge is play.

In general I read history, science, psychology, and light philosophy (I generally do not try to read original stuff but read from a secondary source).

For example I have been trying to understand the meaning of 'understand' for a long time and I think I now have an answer. I will stop the effort but I constantly am prepared to take it up again should something reignite my doubt as to my answer or that I find something that will add to my understanding.

the following two paragraphs were meant to be at the end of this bit on disinterested knowledge. Then I try to write on this forum the page keeps jumping around.

Repression is an attempt to guard the creature from anxiety. There are many things both internally and externally that might cause anxiety. The ego acts as a gate keeper in which it suppresses those that might cause anxiety.

An example might be when we, as a child, see our parents having sex or someting similiar that distrubs us greatly.

I do not remember saying that religion is the ultimate neurosis and cannot at this moment defend suh a statement.

[This part on Dewey blanked by FekketCantenel - it was already posted earlier in the thread, and was presumably a copy-and-paste mistake here.]

Sarasnee, I'm not saying the topics are uninteresting to everyone (even I found a few to be interesting, if overly-professorial). If coberst wants to talk about them, that's his prerogative. I'm just trying to understand why he thinks we need to learn them.

As for the copying, I take offense to being kopipei'd at rather than talked to. It's like someone offering to explain something to you, and then handing you a fifth-generation VHS tape of a boring half-hour lecture. Furthermore, if you google a little, you'll find that he's posted most of these passages on at least five other messageboards.

On the subject of all information being interesting/useful: All? Would you (you, personally, in your current situation) memorize lists of car parts, complete with model numbers and manufacturers? Assuming you're not a mechanic or car buff, it would be boring and useless. You would gain little pleasure from finishing the memorization, and would probably forget it all in a week.

This is what I'm saying: There is so much in the world to learn. Besides the wide range of useful topics (first aid, cooking, self-help techniques, and all the skills relevant to your career), there are volumes of information on things you are interested in, fact or fiction. Coberst, are you saying we must exclude these things (at least sometimes) and actively pursue things that are neither?

Why do people keep talking about banning? I already clarified in a previous post that, unless someone starts spamming the board with five posts at a time on moral relativism as it relates to Teletubbies, there will be no bans. Quit trying to turn me into Hitler (yay Godwin!). All I'm trying to do is get Gene Ray over here to slow down and explain these big, fun ideas.

Coberst, why did you repaste your bit on 'understanding' ("I have been working at understanding "Philosophy in the Flesh" for months . . .")? Was that a mistake?

We learn interested knowledge as a means to an end. We learn disinerested knowledge as an end-in-itself. Studying disinterested knowledge is preparation for a work of art. To study disinterested knowledge is to seek understanding and not just knowledge. To understand is to create meaning and disinterested knowledge is like a child at play. It is at play that we crate not only meaning but we create energy. A child at play creates energy. An adult at play creates energy and studying disinterested knowledge is play.

-"coberst"

I read your other posts fully, I just still don't agree with calling it disinterested knowledge. If you find it important to know then it shouldn't be considered disinterested. I think there should be a better term, because if it wasn't important then you wouldn't learn it. Its importance should make it interesting to you if you believe knowledge is inherently valuable (in and of itself).

I do not remember saying that religion is the ultimate neurosis and cannot at this moment defend suh a statement.

-"coberst"

Okay, but what part of specifically animal nature are we repressing? Is it natural to watch our parents have sex? Is this a part of our animal nature? I don't see how this example applies to our animal natures. It's just a disturbing thing to see due to our psychological associations with our parents. Porn, on the other hand... people don't always repress...

I can see you might be saying that we repress animalistic desires like sex, especially in childhood (this makes me feel very Freudian to say) because others believe there should be a physical "innocence." I'll think about it. It kind of makes sense.

Sarasnee, I'm not saying the topics are uninteresting to everyone (even I found a few to be interesting, if overly-professorial). If coberst wants to talk about them, that's his prerogative. I'm just trying to understand why he thinks we need to learn them.

-"FekketCantenel"

Oooh, gotcha. I also didn't realize the extent of the copying. I thought you were just upset that he copied the PM. I understand wanting to post the original topic on other boards to get various perspectives, but not responses for sure.

On the subject of all information being interesting/useful: All? Would you (you, personally, in your current situation) memorize lists of car parts, complete with model numbers and manufacturers? Assuming you're not a mechanic or car buff, it would be boring and useless. You would gain little pleasure from finishing the memorization, and would probably forget it all in a week.

-"FekketCantenel"

When I was thinking about this statement and whether or not it was true, I left out a lot lol. I think I just went straight for intellectual pursuits rather than, well, trivia. I like math, science, liberal arts, engineering, etc, but I see there are boring subjects in any area. You have a point. But I think what I meant was that I find all knowledge in general to be inherently valuable. It might be boring, but I think all knowledge is useful/important. It doesn't mean I'll be motivated enough to learn it if I find it boring though. lol! It's funny you say car parts because I had a coworker who didn't get the hint on topics we weren't interested about hearing, and he'd talk about cars all day... Eventually I felt really cool when I would understand anything he said. But it was still boring, and no, I probably wouldn't spend my time learning it even though I see it as being important.

I still wouldn't call it disinterested knowledge either.

moral relativism as it relates to Teletubbies

Hahahahaha! That sounds like a very entertaining discussion, lmao. If we do go into relativist teletubbies I'll remember to keep it to one topic. :D